Ollanta Humala (UPP) 30.67%
Alan García (Apra) 24.30%
Lourdes Flores (UN) 23.71%
Gap between García and Flores: 67,649 votes (0.59%).
La diferencia entre Alan y Lourdes sigue bajando
El Comercio Online, 19 de abril del 2006
Lourdes Flores Nano sigue acercándose a Alan García en la carrera por llegar a la segunda vuelta electoral. El último reporte de la Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales (ONPE), al 91,60% de los votos escrutados, revela que García Pérez (Apra) alcanza el 24,30% mientras que Lourdes Flores (UN) tiene 23,71% con lo que la diferencia entre ambos se acorta a 67.649 votos (0,59%). Ollanta Humala (UPP) tiene 30,67%
Se reducen a 67 mil 449 los votos que separan a García de Lourdes Flores
Perú 21, Online, 19 de abril del 2006
El último reporte de la ONPE, al 91.60% de las actas computadas, señala que la ventaja de Alan García frente a Lourdes Flores es de 67 mil 449 votos. El Apra tiene 24.30% y la lideresa de Unidad Nacional alcanza el 23.71%. En tanto, el candidato de Unión Por el Perú (UPP), Ollanta Humala, se mantiene en el primer lugar.
La diferencia entre ambos candidatos hasta ayer, martes 18 de abril, era de 81 mil 199 votos válidos, pero esta mañana disminuyó a 67 mil 449 votos. Flores Nano incrementó sus votos de 23.62 a 23.71 por ciento. Por otro lado, Alan García disminuyó sus votos de 24.32 a 24.30 por ciento.
Además, el candidato presidencial de Unión Por el Perú, Ollanta Humala, permanece en el primer lugar con el 30.77 por ciento, con lo que mantiene asegurada su presencia en la segunda vuelta electoral.
Cabe señalar que hasta el momento han sido 7 mil 630 actas observadas y 99 actas anuladas..
14 replies on “ONPE Presidential results at 91.60%”
ONPE finally updated its web page to show Andean Parliament results in a useful way. With 62.895% of the actas computed, the results are (top 4):
UPP: 24.768%
Apra: 22.810%
UN: 20.476%
AF: 9.162%
I read the rules for the election, and my understanding is the following:
First, the five parliamentarians are selected, using the D’Hondt algorithm on the basis of the party votes (and then using the preferential votes for each party.)
Then, for each parliamentarian elected, a first supplementary representative is selected from the same list as the elected parliamentarian, by continuing down the preferential results. That process is then repeated for the second supplementary representative.
So the D’Hondt process is used to select five representatives. In this particular case, the computation is straight-forward: UPP and Apra each get two, and UN gets one.
Those three lists seem to have clear preferential votes for the top positions, so presumably the Andean parliamentarians will be:
Rafael Rey (UN)
Juan Mariátegui (UPP)
Elsa Malpartida (UPP)
Wilbert Bendezu (Apra)
Rosa Marina León Flores (Apra)
That’s 40% women representatives. It’s harder to verify the supplementaries, but I think the percentage is lower.
THE ELECTION IS OVER, ON TO ROUND 2. FLORES CAN RETIRE AND EAT HER CHOCOLATE CAKE AND GO WORK FOR AN INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM. SHE IS BEHIND BY 67,000 VOTES WITH LESS THAN 59,000 VOTES LEFT TO COUNT. HURRAY, I WIN A DOLLAR ON MY BET FROM THE OTHER PERUVIANS LIVING HERE IN THE STATES.
Javier, I’ll send you some tissue for your tears!
Max,
I appreciate that you finally revealed what is your speech about. Self-glory. How ridiculous to say it loud, a one dollar bet, and contaminate what was supposed to be a serious debate.
Enjoy your ‘victory’ .(??) and keep dreaming. While he will be playing his role in this cycle, Humala will not benefit anyone else but the military, and maybe his family, though he is not consistent on how he feels about family values.
For the serious people in this debate I would like to know how viable are the proposed government plans to produce sustained growth not only in the short-term but also in the long-term. I don’t think there is enough out to make any good estimates, all I have read about the top three are just very nice wishful thinking.
Maybe someone have some inside information?.
Javier
All right, now you’re trolling. No matter what your opinion may be yelling by typing all in capitals is completely inappropriate.
Moderator, I know you edit out posts that are offensive or show bad behavior. Why did you permit this post by Max then? It’s a flame that should’ve been deleted.
The truth is that I do almost no editing of the posts that appear on this site. I occasionally will delete a word if I think it is offensive to a specific person. In a couple of cases I have refused to post something that I felt was too hostile toward a particular person. I will also not tolerate racist, sexist, or homophobic language.
I realize the blogosphere is hardly a Habermasian free speech community! However, I would simply use this occasion to, again, call on everyone to treat other peoples’ views with respect and toleration. The purpose of this blog is to provide a space for reflection and analysis that is academic, non-partisan, and educational.
A certain amount of venting is fine. Vigorous debate on ideas is terrific. But let’s keep it impersonal. Remember, if people don’t feel comfortable contributing to this blog, then the purpose is lost. One should consider one’s own posts in this light: am I encouraging healthy debate or am I silencing others with my own words.
If there is a growing sense that the discussion is out of line, I will, I am afraid, have to step in and be a more hands-on moderator.
I have to agree with the moderator.
Because we can’t see the face and gestures of the other participants, when you find writing in capitals and falling into personal attacks certainly helps the whole group to have a good idea of who you are dealing with. If the moderator had deleted it, we would have kept assuming the seriousness/maturity of the participant.
I have known of people who come to weblogs with the most weird reasons, including doing their own “social experiment” or “study emotional reactions”.
Peruvians are very smart, we just need to focus in good causes.
Guys, can’t you take a joke. You’ve called me every name in the book. I look forward to a serious discussion when the next election occurs in 6 weeks. Though I anticipate I will not get 100 emails in support of Garcia as I did in support of Flores. The people running this site have shown great ability (though some may think with veiled prejudices).
It would be great to see Garcia and Humala with their platforms of substance side by side. With the internet, this is more likely than without.
The censorship of this site regarding posts is an excellent example of communism. My reply to a remark made regarding my handle was not permitted even though it did not fall into any classification you have indicated in your post as offensive. Just re-iterates my point that media is able to form an opinion for the masses based on one individual’s interpretation of offensive, and even at that you, as the moderator are unable or unwilling to adhere to your own criteria. Much like empty ever spinning policies of many governments.
Kleuless,
You did write a post a while back that was offensive and directed at a specific individual. The comment had no substance of any relevance to this website. Sorry.
— Max
Happened to me too more than once. This wouldn’t happen on about.com.
Max:
When did we not post something you said, Max? Can you back that up? We have posted everything you have sent, to the best of my knowledge.
I have refused to publish a posting that was written to you. It was offensive and intended to ridicule you. I would not tolerate that.
— Max
oh, so that is why my message wasn’t posted! Max, I look forward to arguing with you in 5 years.
————————-
No, it was not your message!
— Max
Maxwell, I you published every post. But you edited my comment on the f*nt*st*c appearance of one of the other posters. And also, a remark directed at J*v**r, which was a bit childish.
That still wouldn’t happen on about.com
I suppose Mary’s profound interpretation of my handle is relevant to your site. Seems there is some inconsistancies with your censorship. Regardless I digress, as this is not a forum for OPEN debate. Regards.